[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX, PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9415 0F 2025 Between: 1. Durgam Laxmi, Wo Jadi Murali, Aged 50 years. Occ. Govt Teacher, R/o Srilanka Colony, Jannaram Mandal, Macherial 32 years, Occ. Tailoring, R/o Kawal (V)' 2. Neeelam Jyothi, Wo Shekar, Aged ...Petitioners /Accused No.2 & 3 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. 54 years, Occ Govt Teacher, Jannaram 2. Mamidib Narsaiah, Sio. Rajam Aged. V/Mandal, Macherial District ... Respondent Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in c.c. No. 221 o1 2025 on the file of the Junior civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrite of FirslClass Court, Luxettipet, Mancherial District. against the Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 3. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all fu(her proceedings Proceedings in c.c. No.221 of 2025 on the file of the First-class court, Luxettipet,Junior civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of .Mancherial District. against the Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 3 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Ravi chandra Bejjaram, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri B. Balaji, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9415 of2o25 DATE:l Zoo.zOzo Betwe en Dr,rrgam l-a-xmi and another Petitioners/Accu sed Nos.2 and 3 A\t) The Stare ol Telang:rna and another Respondents :ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners / accused Nos.1 anrl 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C,No.221 of 2025 on thc fikr of the Junior Civil Judge cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Luxettrpet, Mancherlal District, for the offence under Section 420 ol the lndi:rn Penal Code. 1860 (for short, 'the tPC'). 2. I3rief facts of the case:

2.1. ()n 14.12.2r)24 at 14:00 hours, respondent No.2 lodged a conrplaint stating that he is resident o[ Ponkal Village, Jannaram Mandal and wc,rking as a (iovernment Teacher in ZPSS, Kzrlamadugu. When he rvas u.trking in ZPSS Kishtapur Village along u.ith accused No.l. a (iovcrnment Teacht'r and resident of Ponkal Village, in the month of Fcl;ruan, 2023. rvith a dishonest intention introduced a Tanvita Ayttrverlic Scheme to him stating that the schente was having many 2

products arrd that if he invested money in the scheme' he would get huge No. 1 allbgedly enrolled hisbenefits. It is further stated that accused name as a member in the said scheme and further represented that if he invested {1,0O,0O0/-, he would receive 118,000/- as commission within 20 days. Believing the words of accused No 1, who was his co-employee' he invested a total amount of Rs 24,00,0O0/- to the accounts of Tanivtha No4' who areCompany, accused No. 1, the petitioners and accused alleged that he received only relatives of accused No.l. It is further Rs.10,80O/- in his wallet on one occasion and did not receive arty further commission amount from the Tanvita Ayrrrvedic Scheme When he approached accused No.1 seeking return of his invested amounl' he allegedly went on postponing the matter without returning the money' Thereby, the accused is alleged to have dishonestly cheated him and said by him' Based on the misappropriated the amount invested l complaint, Crime No. 184 of 2024 was registered against accused Nos and 4 and the petitioners for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and the Investigating Officer, after conducting investigation and recording the statements of the witnesses, filed a frnal report a-nd the learned tdal Court took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners and other accused. for the 3. Heard Mr. Ravi Chandra Bejjaram ' learned counsel and for respondent No 2 petitioners, Mr. B Balaji, Iearned counsel 3

Mr. .J thender Rao Veeramalla, learned AdditionaL public prosecutor for rcsPondent No. 1-State 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the peHtioners:

4. | . l,earncd counscl for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the prcser.t czrse solelv on the ground that petitioner No.1 is the wife and p('titioner No.2 is thc sister of erccused No.1. llven according to the allcgations made in the compl:rint as u ell as the final report, the ingredLenrs oi the .ffence under Section 420 of the Ipc are not attracted. Rcspondent No.2 has implicatcd the petirioners only to settle scores with acr:trse d No.1 and has made bald allegations against them. Accused No.1 and respondent No.2 are colleagues and the petitioners have had no communication rvith respondent No.2. The entire allegations are levelled ag:rins, accused No. I onh'. The petitroners are not associated u,ith TarrvitzL AYun,edi Scheme or Tanvita Rcal trstate and there was no dishon:st int(,ntlon on rheir part tou,ards respondent No.2. The only allegation levr'lled in thc complaint is that at the instance of accused No. i. r,:spondent No.2 transferred certain amounts to the accounts of the petiLLorrers. 'lhe s.id allegation does not attract the ingredients of the offt'nce unrlcr section 420 of the IPC. Further, there is no material to est..rblis h any conspiracy between accused No.1 and the petitioners. Petitioner \o. I is a Go\.ernment 'l'eacher and petitic,ner No.2 is eking out 4

her livelihood by doing tailoring work. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of'the process of law. 5. Submissions oflearned counsel for respondent No.2: 5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. It is alleged that respondent No.2 invested a huge amount of Rs.24 lakhs ald, at the instance of accused No. 1, transferred various amounts through RTGS and PhonePe to the accounts of Talvita Ayrrvedic Scheme as well as to the accounts of the petitioners. The Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of the witnesses, filed the final report. The witnesses have specifically 1mentioned the role of the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 and accused No. are residing under the same roof and the petitioners do not dispute having receiving amount from respondent No.2. The allegations levelled in the compliant and the statements of the witnesses specifically refer to the role of the petitioners and the truthfulness of these allegations can be revealed only during the course of tria1. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. 6. Submissions of learned Addltional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1:

same6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated the very submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and submitted that respondent No.2 transferred the amount through PhonePe to the accounts of the petitioners at the instance of accused No.1 and the J periti)ncrs have received the sa:d amount. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings Analrrsis 7 Hauing considered the rival submissions rnade by the respective partir's and upon perusal ol the material avatlable on record, it reveals that t hcre are spt:cific allcgations levelled in the ,_-ompliant that accused No 1 and respon<lent No.2 arc kno\4'n to each other and accused No. 1 infrrrrred respondent No.2 that he was working as a director in Tanvita Alun cdic Scheme and in that Tanvita Al.urvedic Scheme. there r.r,ere manv products, if they werc sold more, the invest,)rs would get money in the lorm of sharcs lrom rhe profits. and accused No. i insisted respondent No2 t r invest amount stating that he u'ould get rnore money. Believing the r,r',rrds of acc used No. 1 . respondent No.2 invesled an amount of Rs.24 Iakh s

8. The record lurther rcveals that there are specific allegations that at the instance o[ accused No.1. respondent No.2 transferred an amount of Rs.(r lakhs to Taltvitha Company on I0.08.202!i ald also transferred various amounts to the accounts of the petitioners on 11.08.2023, 16.08.2023 ancl 17.08.2023 as r,vell as the accoun',s of accused No.1 and accuscd No.4 through RTGS as uell as Phonepe, bl hand and cheque. 9. Ir is not in dispute that the petitioners are none other than the wife and sister of nccused No. l. \\'hen respondent No.2 demanded repayment 6 of the amount, the petrtioners, with a dishonest intenlion and to avoid to pay the said mount, deceived respondent No.2 'and cheated him' hna1Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as the report and the statements given by the witnesses indicate a conspiracy between the petitioners and accused No.1 has to be revealed during the course of trial. The grounds which were raised by learned counsel for the bepetitioners are disputed questions of fact and the same cannot adjudicated in a proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

10. In Sau. Kamala ShlvaJi Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.r, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised in exceptional cases sparingly, with caution, only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice; and i.t cannot be invoked to weigh evidence or stifle a genuine prosecution, but may be applied where the allegations in the complaint, taken at ferce value, do not disclose the basic ingredients of any offence' The case on hald is not the rarest of rare cases to exercise por""'ers of this proceedings inCourt under Section 482 of Cr.P C. to quash the C.C.No. i7248 of 2019. 11. In Stete of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and othrs2' the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations, even if (2019) 14 scc 350 ' 1992 supp (1) scc 335 ' 7

taken a: their face value. do not disclose the commission of any offence. In caser; arising under Scction 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, q'here the complarnt prima facie discloses issuance ,tf cheques tou'ards a legallv enlorceablc debt, their presentation, dishonour for insufficiency of funds. issuancc of statuton- notice. and failure to make payment, the proceed:ngs cannot be quashed at the threshold. Any defence sought to be raist'd by the accused, including disputes relating to liability or compliance s'ith statuton. requirements, involves questions of fact which musr nccessarily be adjudicated at trial ald do not fall within the exceptional categorics uarranting rnterference as delineated in Bhajan Lal supra- ) 2. It is alrcadv statc-d supra that there are specilic allegations lcveiled agaLnsr the peririone rs in rhe complaint as well as in the hnal report a ed the sarne. pima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offence. The case on hand does not fall under the ambit of rarest of rare case to exerc:ise lhe po\\'ers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash Lhc procccdings. 13. For the foregoing rcasons and precedent decisions, this Court does nor find atnr gror-rnd to quash the procet:dings against the petitioners in C.C.No.221 of 2025. l4. Ac:ordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, AS pctitroner No. 1 is a go\.L-rnmenL teacher and petitioner No.2 is doing 8

tailoring work, their presence belore the trial Court in C.C.No.22 1 of 2025 is dispensed with, unless their presence is' specifica)ly required subject to the condition that the petitioners shall represent through their counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of non-appearance of the petitioners on the specific date so fixed by the trial Court for their appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Court, J udge-cum-J ud icial Magistrate of First-Class 1. The Junior Civil Luxettipet, Mancherial District. 2 The station House officer, Jannaram Police station, Macherial District. 3 TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtofTelanganaatHyderabad louTl 4 bne CC to Sri Ravi Chandra Bejjaram, Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to Sri B. Balali, Advocate [OPUC] b Two CD Copies GNK/KAW HIGH COURT DATED: 1t210612026 1tlg srar6, k q 9 JUN 2026 d1 i ORDER * ,l;t CRLP.No.9415 o12025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ( rr I ,LAL,it 6 \1

[ 3303 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX, PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9415 0F 2025 Between: 1. Durgam Laxmi, Wo Jadi Murali, Aged 50 years. Occ. Govt Teacher, R/o Srilanka Colony, Jannaram Mandal, Macherial 32 years, Occ. Tailoring, R/o Kawal (V)' 2. Neeelam Jyothi, Wo Shekar, Aged ...Petitioners /Accused No.2 & 3 AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. 54 years, Occ Govt Teacher, Jannaram 2. Mamidib Narsaiah, Sio. Rajam Aged. V/Mandal, Macherial District ... Respondent Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in c.c. No. 221 o1 2025 on the file of the Junior civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrite of FirslClass Court, Luxettipet, Mancherial District. against the Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 3. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all fu(her proceedings Proceedings in c.c. No.221 of 2025 on the file of the First-class court, Luxettipet,Junior civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of .Mancherial District. against the Petitioners/Accused No.2 to 3 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Ravi chandra Bejjaram, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri B. Balaji, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9415 of2o25 DATE:l Zoo.zOzo Betwe en Dr,rrgam l-a-xmi and another Petitioners/Accu sed Nos.2 and 3 A\t) The Stare ol Telang:rna and another Respondents :ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners / accused Nos.1 anrl 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C,No.221 of 2025 on thc fikr of the Junior Civil Judge cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Luxettrpet, Mancherlal District, for the offence under Section 420 ol the lndi:rn Penal Code. 1860 (for short, 'the tPC'). 2. I3rief facts of the case:

2.1. ()n 14.12.2r)24 at 14:00 hours, respondent No.2 lodged a conrplaint stating that he is resident o[ Ponkal Village, Jannaram Mandal and wc,rking as a (iovernment Teacher in ZPSS, Kzrlamadugu. When he rvas u.trking in ZPSS Kishtapur Village along u.ith accused No.l. a (iovcrnment Teacht'r and resident of Ponkal Village, in the month of Fcl;ruan, 2023. rvith a dishonest intention introduced a Tanvita Ayttrverlic Scheme to him stating that the schente was having many 2

products arrd that if he invested money in the scheme' he would get huge No. 1 allbgedly enrolled hisbenefits. It is further stated that accused name as a member in the said scheme and further represented that if he invested {1,0O,0O0/-, he would receive 118,000/- as commission within 20 days. Believing the words of accused No 1, who was his co-employee' he invested a total amount of Rs 24,00,0O0/- to the accounts of Tanivtha No4' who areCompany, accused No. 1, the petitioners and accused alleged that he received only relatives of accused No.l. It is further Rs.10,80O/- in his wallet on one occasion and did not receive arty further commission amount from the Tanvita Ayrrrvedic Scheme When he approached accused No.1 seeking return of his invested amounl' he allegedly went on postponing the matter without returning the money' Thereby, the accused is alleged to have dishonestly cheated him and said by him' Based on the misappropriated the amount invested l complaint, Crime No. 184 of 2024 was registered against accused Nos and 4 and the petitioners for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and the Investigating Officer, after conducting investigation and recording the statements of the witnesses, filed a frnal report a-nd the learned tdal Court took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners and other accused. for the 3. Heard Mr. Ravi Chandra Bejjaram ' learned counsel and for respondent No 2 petitioners, Mr. B Balaji, Iearned counsel 3

Mr. .J thender Rao Veeramalla, learned AdditionaL public prosecutor for rcsPondent No. 1-State 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the peHtioners:

4. | . l,earncd counscl for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the prcser.t czrse solelv on the ground that petitioner No.1 is the wife and p('titioner No.2 is thc sister of erccused No.1. llven according to the allcgations made in the compl:rint as u ell as the final report, the ingredLenrs oi the .ffence under Section 420 of the Ipc are not attracted. Rcspondent No.2 has implicatcd the petirioners only to settle scores with acr:trse d No.1 and has made bald allegations against them. Accused No.1 and respondent No.2 are colleagues and the petitioners have had no communication rvith respondent No.2. The entire allegations are levelled ag:rins, accused No. I onh'. The petitroners are not associated u,ith TarrvitzL AYun,edi Scheme or Tanvita Rcal trstate and there was no dishon:st int(,ntlon on rheir part tou,ards respondent No.2. The only allegation levr'lled in thc complaint is that at the instance of accused No. i. r,:spondent No.2 transferred certain amounts to the accounts of the petiLLorrers. 'lhe s.id allegation does not attract the ingredients of the offt'nce unrlcr section 420 of the IPC. Further, there is no material to est..rblis h any conspiracy between accused No.1 and the petitioners. Petitioner \o. I is a Go\.ernment 'l'eacher and petitic,ner No.2 is eking out 4

her livelihood by doing tailoring work. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of'the process of law. 5. Submissions oflearned counsel for respondent No.2: 5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. It is alleged that respondent No.2 invested a huge amount of Rs.24 lakhs ald, at the instance of accused No. 1, transferred various amounts through RTGS and PhonePe to the accounts of Talvita Ayrrvedic Scheme as well as to the accounts of the petitioners. The Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of the witnesses, filed the final report. The witnesses have specifically 1mentioned the role of the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 and accused No. are residing under the same roof and the petitioners do not dispute having receiving amount from respondent No.2. The allegations levelled in the compliant and the statements of the witnesses specifically refer to the role of the petitioners and the truthfulness of these allegations can be revealed only during the course of tria1. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. 6. Submissions of learned Addltional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1:

same6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated the very submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and submitted that respondent No.2 transferred the amount through PhonePe to the accounts of the petitioners at the instance of accused No.1 and the J periti)ncrs have received the sa:d amount. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings Analrrsis 7 Hauing considered the rival submissions rnade by the respective partir's and upon perusal ol the material avatlable on record, it reveals that t hcre are spt:cific allcgations levelled in the ,_-ompliant that accused No 1 and respon<lent No.2 arc kno\4'n to each other and accused No. 1 infrrrrred respondent No.2 that he was working as a director in Tanvita Alun cdic Scheme and in that Tanvita Al.urvedic Scheme. there r.r,ere manv products, if they werc sold more, the invest,)rs would get money in the lorm of sharcs lrom rhe profits. and accused No. i insisted respondent No2 t r invest amount stating that he u'ould get rnore money. Believing the r,r',rrds of acc used No. 1 . respondent No.2 invesled an amount of Rs.24 Iakh s

8. The record lurther rcveals that there are specific allegations that at the instance o[ accused No.1. respondent No.2 transferred an amount of Rs.(r lakhs to Taltvitha Company on I0.08.202!i ald also transferred various amounts to the accounts of the petitioners on 11.08.2023, 16.08.2023 ancl 17.08.2023 as r,vell as the accoun',s of accused No.1 and accuscd No.4 through RTGS as uell as Phonepe, bl hand and cheque. 9. Ir is not in dispute that the petitioners are none other than the wife and sister of nccused No. l. \\'hen respondent No.2 demanded repayment 6 of the amount, the petrtioners, with a dishonest intenlion and to avoid to pay the said mount, deceived respondent No.2 'and cheated him' hna1Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as the report and the statements given by the witnesses indicate a conspiracy between the petitioners and accused No.1 has to be revealed during the course of trial. The grounds which were raised by learned counsel for the bepetitioners are disputed questions of fact and the same cannot adjudicated in a proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

10. In Sau. Kamala ShlvaJi Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.r, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised in exceptional cases sparingly, with caution, only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice; and i.t cannot be invoked to weigh evidence or stifle a genuine prosecution, but may be applied where the allegations in the complaint, taken at ferce value, do not disclose the basic ingredients of any offence' The case on hald is not the rarest of rare cases to exercise por""'ers of this proceedings inCourt under Section 482 of Cr.P C. to quash the C.C.No. i7248 of 2019. 11. In Stete of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and othrs2' the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations, even if (2019) 14 scc 350 ' 1992 supp (1) scc 335 ' 7

taken a: their face value. do not disclose the commission of any offence. In caser; arising under Scction 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, q'here the complarnt prima facie discloses issuance ,tf cheques tou'ards a legallv enlorceablc debt, their presentation, dishonour for insufficiency of funds. issuancc of statuton- notice. and failure to make payment, the proceed:ngs cannot be quashed at the threshold. Any defence sought to be raist'd by the accused, including disputes relating to liability or compliance s'ith statuton. requirements, involves questions of fact which musr nccessarily be adjudicated at trial ald do not fall within the exceptional categorics uarranting rnterference as delineated in Bhajan Lal supra- ) 2. It is alrcadv statc-d supra that there are specilic allegations lcveiled agaLnsr the peririone rs in rhe complaint as well as in the hnal report a ed the sarne. pima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offence. The case on hand does not fall under the ambit of rarest of rare case to exerc:ise lhe po\\'ers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash Lhc procccdings. 13. For the foregoing rcasons and precedent decisions, this Court does nor find atnr gror-rnd to quash the procet:dings against the petitioners in C.C.No.221 of 2025. l4. Ac:ordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, AS pctitroner No. 1 is a go\.L-rnmenL teacher and petitioner No.2 is doing 8

tailoring work, their presence belore the trial Court in C.C.No.22 1 of 2025 is dispensed with, unless their presence is' specifica)ly required subject to the condition that the petitioners shall represent through their counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of non-appearance of the petitioners on the specific date so fixed by the trial Court for their appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Court, J udge-cum-J ud icial Magistrate of First-Class 1. The Junior Civil Luxettipet, Mancherial District. 2 The station House officer, Jannaram Police station, Macherial District. 3 TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtofTelanganaatHyderabad louTl 4 bne CC to Sri Ravi Chandra Bejjaram, Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to Sri B. Balali, Advocate [OPUC] b Two CD Copies GNK/KAW HIGH COURT DATED: 1t210612026 1tlg srar6, k q 9 JUN 2026 d1 i ORDER * ,l;t CRLP.No.9415 o12025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ( rr I ,LAL,it 6 \1